I'm running into problems in some of the right-wing groups I'm in just trying to find out exactly how communist each person is within the group. The problem is that right-wing people tend to outright reject communism at face-value but then right-wing people start advocating for resource redistribution policies that are simply "communist-light".
What is everyone's idea of some sort of "minimum" access to resources everyone should have?
If I owned all the resources in society. All the land. All the equipment. Everything. You would not be able to get any food without trespassing on my land which is a violation of my private property. If you followed private property laws then you would get 0 resources. I could pay you some of those resources in exchange for some sort of "labor". Perhaps, I find your daughter cute so I pay her resources in exchange for sex but perhaps I don't like you at all so I decide to pay you 0 resources. Without any resources, you will die. Is this right? Is it right that I can use the fact I own all the resources to "force" others into doing what I want them to do "labor, including prostitution" or that I can outright refuse to employ someone if I don't like them such that they would have 0 resources?
At a philosophical level, is the above "ok" to people? If it isn't okay to people, then what is the minimum situation any individual should be allowed in society? Does every person have a right to work? Does every person have a right to certain kinds of work (not prostitution but manual labor is fine for example)? Does every person have a right to a certain amount of resources given the work they do?
A lot of people don't want to tackle the above hypothetical because most people say the above hypothetical is unreasonable. But, is it? It's going to be coming up soon. ESG metrics, digital IDs, etc... If you don't do what you're told, you want have access to resources. Many on here believe this is wrong BUT who is telling you how you have to behave? The owners of capital. If all owners of resources got together and said they only will give jobs in exchange for resources to people who met certain characteristics, why is that something that isn't allowed? If you truly believe that people don't have a right to the resources other people own then why can't the owners of resources simply decline to give their resources to other people if they don't want to? Otherwise, what you're suggesting is that everyone should have a right to earn resources from those who have capital. If that's what you believe then what are the parameters of this guarantee on other people's resources? How communist are you?
I guess one way of describing what I'm asking is "what sort of things in life should every person be guaranteed"?
That's an interesting question, and I have seen it from a different point of view. God has created all and knows all, why would he give us anything? Can we abuse God by misusing what he gives us or harming his creations? He has all of the power and by all rights could just wipe us out, but doesn't.
When dealing with someone who owns everything, and nothing is given unless he allows it, how is anyone alive outside of his will? He chooses who survives because any misuse of his possessions can be ended by force. The King's Forest point of view compared to the poacher poor man's point of view.
So, if there are people who live outside of his powers, and can not be touched unless he intervenes by force, he does not own everything. The people can make their own, and thus whatever the man believes he has power over is only as strong as his actual ability to enforce that law. In East Germany, people would smuggle clothes, books, and movies under enormous pressure to not do so. How? Because ownership couldn't be enforced as much as it was purported. To own land, you need enforcers, and to keep them loyal, you need rewards. Even if a small amount is corrupt and willing to trade land, food, and other bits, it will be enough to create a counter. So, they can't actually own the land in the way that they proclaim.
However, they need to at least make the appearance that they have all the power and control because the majority of the people will realize there is no ownership and rebel. The entire ownership rests on the idea that the people accept the falsehood of ownership. If you can't actually enforce something, the next best trick is to make it look like you do and that you punish rebels harshly.
This is why so many rulers declare themselves something akin to God himself. They want the idea that anyone rebelling is going against an all knowing and powerful deity, and not some guy who owns a piece of paper and a few guards to enforce that paper.
I don't think anyone can fully enforce their own power without the use of others, and I doubt they will be perfect in their enforcement. Therefore, all empires fall, even if they have a big surveillance program and extra rules.
Oddly enough, God, who really is all knowing and powerful did the opposite. He created rules, and then suffered his own punishments so we can workout our own salvation. That is so very different from a dictator it is shocking.